-
Allen West: In Search of Giants
March 19, 2013 | 4 comments
-
“The Bible’s” Third Episode
March 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
HABEMUS PAPAM: Historic Firsts
March 13, 2013 | 2 comments
-
The Bible’s Second Episode
March 12, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Let’s Go Dutch
March 1, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Thursday witnessed a confluence of great minds descending upon the Heritage Foundation to discuss Russia in the wake of Obama and Putin’s re-election. Four of those minds made up the discussion panel, and though they came from notably different walks of life (Russian and American, liberal and conservative), they were remarkably united in their negative outlook.
The backdrop of the discussion involved President Obama’s much-touted “reset” of relations, and the various ways this policy had failed to change anything. On the contrary, all the panelists cited a growing strain of anti-Americanism, fueling laws like “DimaYakovlev,” banning Americans from adopting Russian orphans.
There is still much room for hope. Vladimir Kura-Murza, senior policy advisor to the Institute of Modern Russia, described how a growing civil society that had turned out against Putin’s re-election for the largest “political” protests since 1991. This group was primarily urban, middle class, connected to the internet, pro-democracy, and going nowhere fast.
On the other hand, Mr. Kura-Murza, buttressed by comments from Dr. Steven Blank, explained that Putin’s regime is quickly expanding its portfolio of repression. This includes expansions in what it means to commit an act of “high treason.” Anyone thought to undermine “constitutional order, sovereignty and territorial and state integrity” counts, and they can even be tried and fined posthumously. The panel also made it very clear that “the Gulag is back,” citing numbers of political prisoners held since Putin’s inauguaration.
Dr. Katrina Swett, president of the Lantos Foundation, emphasized that serious human rights violations are difficult to track and cover in an environment of state-controlled media, where organizations that receive outside funding are required to register as “foreign agents.” She also commented on a growing amount of tension for non-orthodox religious groups as the Duma seeks to make blasphemy a criminal act.
All of this happens to be congealing in a period of U.S. disengagement. Mr. Kura-Murza noted that the State Department blandly congratulated the Russian people on their successful election on the same day as the election protests. As the U.S. pulls out of Afghanistan and quietly stops talking about a “new silk road,” they cede Central Asia to Russia’s sphere of influence. Finally, Russian moves to block action in Syria and Iran have so far met no apparent American resistance.
The panel explained that Russia was bent on an anti-democracy trajectory, and that this stood out as the lynch pin to understanding their stance towards America. By staying true to its principles, America should eventually be able to find a worthy response.
View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jackson Adams
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/02/22/resetting-the-reset
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
C Bowen | 2.22.13 @ 6:22PM
Vladimir Kura-Murza -- NED/Soros funded Trotskyite talking about an independent press?
Katrina Lantos Swett --Clinton globalist. Lantos was very close with Soros, right?
What sort of idiotic post is this? Aren't there some liberal sites for Jackson Adams to work at?
CLD| 2.23.13 @ 1:12AM
Adams is discussing a Heritage Foundation event. If the panelists don't meet your approval you should take it up with Heritage, not Adams.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.23.13 @ 7:37PM
It just goes to show that self proclaimed "conservative" organizations such as the Heritage Foundation are not really conservative at all. They are internationalists beholden to the same multinational corporations and notions of Western liberal globalist order that their liberal counterparts are beholden. Notice how the only neo-conservative rebuff to Obama's hawkish foreign policy is that it hasn't been hawkish enough? They applaud internationalist liberal interventionism with NATO and continue the legacy of Western Imperialism except now it is disguised and "Humanitarian Intervention" as called their actions in Libya and Serbia before that.
CLD| 2.25.13 @ 9:31PM
If by 'conservatism' you mean a single, unified political philosophy or ideology, there is no such thing and never has been. There are a variety of different philosophies and ideologies that oppose the Left and get grouped together under the label 'conservative.'
The inclusion of panelists at Heritage event that do not full under the category of opposing the Left hardly means Heritage Foundation itself is not so opposed.
My reply to Bowen was to note that he can't fairly blame Jackson Adams for the panelists at the event, nor for what they said. Your reply to my post doesn't address this point in the slightest.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.22.13 @ 7:40PM
The source of anti-Americanism in Russia is anti-Russianism in the United States that has run rampant in Washington DC even after the fall of the Soviet Union. How would America feel if Russia feel if Alaska and Texas broke away from the union and Russia and China let them join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Or if Russian bombs had been dropped on America's closest ally as they were dropped on Russia's closest ally Serbia to support a group of terrorists and then dividing that land and giving the terrorists their own country ethnically cleansing the original inhabitants? What about religion? Ever since the Soviet Union fell the traditional Orthodox lands of Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus and other former Soviet republics have been flooded with Western missionaries of religious sects foreign to the land. What is wrong with Russia wanting to safeguard the Orthodox character of the country?
Traditional religions such as Judaism, Islam, Bhuddism and Shamanism (as practiced by many Siberian nomads) are legal and protected in Russia. Why does Russia need Scientologists, Mormons, Jehova Witnesses or even Evangelical missionaries when Russia has Orthodoxy?
CLD| 2.23.13 @ 12:44AM
There is nothing anti-Russian in the US's attempts to form alliances with former Soviet republics. These moves may or may not be wise for either party, but they are not as such anti-Russian. Nor is any stupidity on the American government's part in the Bosnian-Serbian war likely to be a source of anti-American sentiment in Russia today.
The more likely culprit is Russia's desire to be a world-power in its own right coupled with an inferiority complex. This manifests in the Russian government doing its best to be a thorn in Washington DC's side.
"Why does Russia need Scientologists, Mormons, Jehova Witnesses or even Evangelical missionaries when Russia has Orthodoxy?"
It isn't a question, Dimitry, of Russia needing or not needing anything. Religions are practiced and believed in by individuals; if individual Russians prefer to be Evangelicals, or Mormons, or something else, that is there business, not the Duma's.
You wouldn't ask such foolish questions if you focused on the rights and responsibilities of individual human beings instead of your precicious idol, Mother Russia.
Having religious missionaries from within and without Russian moving about is just apart of being part of the modern world (and respecting freedom of religion). Even without the foreigners, religious notions will spread via modern communications technologies (such as we are using right now).
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.23.13 @ 12:21PM
Western liberal ideas should not be forced upon Russia, by America, Europe or anyone else. Communism was a Western idea and it nearly destroyed Orthodox Russia. I am an America, I love America and I believe American Constitutional Principles are good...FOR AMERICA. I am also a Russian Orthodox Christian and being Russian Orthodox Christian I fully understand that foreign religious sects can only divide the country and only Orthodoxy can restore Russia for it is the heart and soul of the Russian people. Why do you think Solzhenitsyn rejected American Western liberalism and came to see Western Capitalism and Consumerism as just as destructive as Communism?...It is because Solzhenitsyn lived and died as an Orthodox Christian. So keep your Western liberalism to yourself. Even self-proclaimed conservatives in the West are really Western Liberals. Russia needs none of it.
CLD| 2.25.13 @ 9:42PM
You are correct about only one thing here, Dimitry: Communism was a Western idea that did great moral and economic harm to Russia. Everything else in your comment is nonsense.
Liberalism is also a product of Western Europe, it is true. However Liberalism does not equal consumerism. Your desire to equate the two reveals a mind that needs to overly simplify reality in order to grasp it.
Which leads us to another problem. Your equating Orthodox Christianity with 'the heart and soul of the Russian people." A people have no heart and soul, Dimitry. Individuals have those things. What a people share is a culture, and no culture can be reduced to simply a shared religion -- even if all the members of the culture do in fact share it -- which isn't the case in Russia.
I do not share your cultural conservative obsession with groupism, Dimitry. Individuals have rights; groups do not. If something other than Orthodox Christianity serves an individual Russian than he has a perfect right to have it -- without the Orthodox Church or the Russian State interfering.
As for what you call the forcing of foreign ideas on Russia, that is simply the movement of people and ideas via modern transportation and communication technologies. To settle the matter to your satisfaction, Russia would need to be located on another planet.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.22.13 @ 7:43PM
In centuries past Russians preferred to be under the Muslim descendants of Ghenghis Kahn rather than beg Roman Catholic Kingdoms for help precisely because they knew the Tatars would let Russians keep their faith whereas the Roman Catholics would assuredly force Russia to convert or at least swear allegiance to the Pope as they did in the Western Ukraine when it was occupied by Roman Catholic powers.
As for NGO's having to register like George Soros (Open Society Foundation) these have been entreched with anti-Russian foreign agents. These same NGO's were actively involved in the color revolutions of Georgia, the Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan that brought leadership in those countries that was largely hostile to Moscow but friendly to the West. What if Russia did the same in Canada and Mexico? What would Americans think?
Why does the United States and Europe refuse Russian calls for a joint missile defense system if that system (in Poland, Romania and Turkey) is not aimed at weakening the Russian military?These are the questions that must be answered. The American government is worried authoritarianism in Russia when America has practically become a police state since 9/11 even targeting and killing its own citizens without trial if they are suspected of terrorism. As usual America should take the beam out of its own eye before it picks at the splinter in Russia's eye.
CLD| 2.23.13 @ 12:57AM
"The American government is worried authoritarianism in Russia when America has practically become a police state since 9/11 even targeting and killing its own citizens without trial if they are suspected of terrorism. As usual America should take the beam out of its own eye before it picks at the splinter in Russia's eye."
Absolutely pathetic!
The US government is going after terrorists who lead terrorist groups that are at war with the US. This is just what it would do with military leaders of nations at war with the US. Being an American citizen doesn't get the military/terrorist leader a "commit war with impunity" card.
You make it sound as if the government were picking off people from the domestic population because they might be terrorists. It isn't.
And there is no comparison between (properly) killing one's own citizens who are treasonsly engaged in a terrorist war against you and promolgating authoritarian measures like criminalizing blasphemy.
The one who needs to take the beam out of his eye before worrying over others' splinters is you, Dimitry. You can't stand to have your precious idol of Russia criticized. Every time it is here you make these ridiculous posts.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.23.13 @ 6:44PM
How do you know they are terrorists? For someone who is anti-authoritarian you are sure giving your government the benefit of the doubt letting them target and kill American citizens (who are suspected terrorists in nations we are not officially at war with). How many civilians have been killed in American drone attacks? How many future Islamist fanatics are created by such attacks. If one day a bomb struck the church where you go because a suspected terrorist was in the church killing your wife and children would you blame just the terrorist or would you blame both the terrorist and the power that dropped the bomb on your kin and seek revenge?
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.23.13 @ 6:45PM
If I am ever wrong I am the first one to admit it. You worry about the Duma passing anti-blasphemy laws and you call yourself some kind of conservative? What do you want to conserve? You wish to conserve Western Liberal (American) ideals which is fine in America but don't try to impose it on Russia. Some self-proclaimed conservatives were even defending those blasphemous whores of that band "Pussy Riot" who decided to commit sacrilegious stunt in an Orthodox Cathedral. What conservative defends women desecrating a Holy place? Their previous stunt had been to perform an orgy in public (in front of even kids) in a public museum. The Orthodox world is tired of the Western cultural garbage that has crept into our countries. Keep your own trash. Russia is Orthodox will always be and I don't idolize the state of Russia like you idolize the Western liberal ideals of Freemasons who created this country. I love my God, I love my Church and I will defend to the death my faith and my Orthodox brothers and sisters around the world. I would do the same for Orthodox Serbia whom NATO bombed for 78 days helping Albanian terrorists tear Holy Kosovo away Serbia to which they killed and terrorized Serb civilians until they had ethnically cleansed most Serbs, Gorani and Jews from Kosovo. Then they torched our Churches and monasteries as NATO troops watched on. Orthodox nations do not need the West. Orthodox nations have had enough of the West. We only need each other.
CLD| 2.25.13 @ 10:25PM
"You worry about the Duma passing anti-blasphemy laws and you call yourself some kind of conservative?"
Now this takes the cake!
Dimitry, as to the meaning of conservatism, please see my reply to your comment to my reply to C Bowen above.
Anyone who believes in freedom of speech and freedom of religion will oppose anti-blasphemy laws. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia's constitution does protect these things, doesn't it? And Russia is a member of the UN, where the declaration of human rights was passed, is it not? No one if forcing Russia's membership, just as no one forced Russia to declare freedom of speech and of religion to be constitutionally protected.
As for western conservatives also being liberals: Well, what the hell do you expect, man? When we fight against the communists, fascists and other socialists we are fighting against the anti-liberalism. The same is true when we fight the Islamists and their ideology. I'm not going to apologize for that.
CLD| 2.25.13 @ 10:28PM
"The Orthodox world is tired of the Western cultural garbage that has crept into our countries"
The orthodox world, the muslim world, the hindu world, etc. etc. I sympathize with non-western societies being flooded with the unsavory aspects of the modern West. I really do. But respect for freedom of religion and freedom of speech and other basic human rights are not among these unsavory aspects. Until you learn to separate the good from the bad in the west, Dimitry, you aren't fit to make any criticisms.
CLD| 2.25.13 @ 10:28PM
"I don't idolize the state of Russia like you idolize the Western liberal ideals of Freemasons who created this country. "
Now this is also pathetic. Overlooking how this contradicts your earlier statement of the goodness of American constitutional principles and your love for America, this statement misunderstands the nature of idolatry. Ideals and values are not idols. They are the expressions of how one reasons people should behave towards one another -- and even towards themselves.
Idolatry is the intellectual/emotional elevation of something through reification. And you demonstrate with you next sentence:
"I love my God, I love my Church and I will defend to the death my faith and my Orthodox brothers and sisters around the world."
Here your God (a symbol reified as an actual person) and your Church (a social institution reified into a family or collective individual) are the idols of your thinking. You'll defend them to the death, like Don Quixote defended his imaginary beloved, while real individuals are tossed aside.
CLD| 2.25.13 @ 9:54PM
How do I know they are terrorists?
It's usually pretty obvious, Dimitry. However, the problem is inherent in fighting an enemy that wears no uniform. Conversely, when fighting an enemy that does wear uniforms, I am not as an individual citizen in control of what leaders get targeted -- or how.
The point of my comment was that being an American citizen is irrelevant in either case. (As is the location of the enemy.)
I did not say I thought highly of drone attacks -- you projected that onto my statement.
As for creating Islamist fanatics -- they are not created via civilian casualities of warfare. (Besides, many people have lost loved ones in wars -- civilians and otherwise -- without burning forever for revenge.)
Sticking with me as the hypothetical -- I already hate the US government, so there is no need for it to bomb anything to raise my ire. I could very well decide to go to war against it, but that wouldn't make me a religious fanatic -- something I am constitutinally disclined to become.
BUT ENOUGH OF THIS! You haven't dealt with my point: Your accusing the US of becoming a police state was absurd on its face, and hypocritical in light of your constant defenses of the authoritarian measures being propoese by -- or acturally taken by -- the Russian government.
Bob K| 2.22.13 @ 9:16PM
We aren't ceding Central Asia to Russia's "sphere of influence" by leaving Afghanistan. Central Asia has always been in Russia's "sphere of influence."
Somebody get Mr. Adams a map.
I wonder if he ever heard Alexander Borodin's Symphonic Poem: "In the Steppes of Central Asia?"
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.22.13 @ 11:19PM
Not only that Bob, but I would be willing to bet most Central Asians (the majority of whom understand and speak Russian at least as a second language if not a first) from the former Soviet Union would rather be in Russia's sphere of influence. What is America's track record in the Middle East...Iraq? Libya? Supporting FSA terrorists in Syria? Any Central Asian with half a brain wants U.S. influence in their country like they'd want the plague. Russia at least brings some stability to the region. Not to mention the fanatics in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan wish to spread their influence to the region which would be a tragedy for everyone in the former Soviet Central Asia.
CLD| 2.23.13 @ 1:09AM
I've heard -- and enjoyed -- Borodin's symphonic poem many times. I still don't get the point of your post.
Adam's phrasing may not have been the most precise, but he was clearly discussing worries about the US government's lack of engagement with central Asia.
Bob K| 2.23.13 @ 10:44AM
Alexander Borodin wrote it in the 1880's. His Opera, "Prince Igor," also had references to the Polivtsians, and a Khan Konchak, historically from the area of Central Asia.
Short link here:
http://www.koczownicy.pl/en/content1.php
Central Asia was well known and important to Russia from early in it's history and Russia had it in it's Sphere of Influence since the times of the Czars.
Bob K| 2.23.13 @ 10:51AM
I suppose I could have made my point more clearly but this area has been historically important enough to Russia for it to inspire their Composers to write music about it.
We have to be realists and know the boundaries of our own spheres of influence.
CLD| 2.25.13 @ 10:32PM
"We have to be realists and know the boundaries of our own spheres of influence."
Ah, now I see the problem.
In today's world, I think most expect our sphere of influence to be global. New Zealand, Japan, India, Uganda all fall under our sphere of influence in some way. Just because Russia wants to call dibs on central Asia doesn't mean we have to back off.
Bob K| 2.23.13 @ 12:21AM
I suggest that one of the reasons why Russia's moves to block action in Syria have not met apparent American resistance is because Russia has a Naval Base in Tartus on Syria's Alawite Mediterranean Coast.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.26.13 @ 12:33AM
CLD I apologize about getting emotional when it comes to issues of Russia and Orthodoxy. With that said we will have to agree to disagree. Your vision and my vision of what America is, should be and its relationship with Russia and the rest of the world is fundamentally different from my own. I love America, I was born and raised here. I love American people, I grew up watching American cartoons and movies. There is part of me that's thoroughly American as are my relatives and friends here in the States. All though I don't idolize the American Constitution and the Republic it gave birth too, I at the same time believe it is the best form of government for America and the only form of government that could govern a nation as diverse (racially, ethnically, culturally, traditionally and religiously) as our our own. With that said I believe Russia and all sovereign nations in the world should be free to govern their own internal affairs free of American influence not because I despise America, but because I truly believe its not America's place and that ill will towards America is brewed in sovereign nations when we meddle in their internal affairs.
CLD| 3.4.13 @ 1:42AM
"I don't idolize the American Constitution and the Republic it gave birth [to]"
I don't idolize them either, Dimitri. But you must admit that suggesting that the American founding was just so much Freemasonry and condemning western conservatives for being for believing in liberal ideals is an odd way of honoring them as the only principles that can govern a nation as diverse as the U.S.
"I believe Russia and all sovereign nations in the world should be free to govern their own internal affairs free of American influence"
Fine and dandy. But you haven't been complaining about interference by the US or any other government. You've been complaining about influence by foreign cultural factors. That's like an American complaining about the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism -- Yoga, mediditation, etc. -- on the country because they are foreign to the Western tradition.
And that is the nub of our disagreement. We can agree to disagree, Dimitry, but I cannot agree to respect your point of view. Your view is group-centered; mine is individual-centered. The individual -- whether in Russia, the US, or anywhere else -- should be free to examine and adopt the thinking that suits him so long as he commits no immoralities against others. The group, be it church, tribe, or nation, has no say in the matter.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.26.13 @ 12:34AM
As I stated before the traditional religions of Russia are protected by the Russian constitution and there is even an unofficial agreement between Orthodox Christians and the Grand Mufti (Muslim leader of Russia) not to proselytize each others flocks. Russia and its Orthodox faithful (as well as Muslims and Jews) did not endure 75 years of material atheism, including the martyrdom of many clerics and faithful only to have their lands poached by Western missionaries or Wahhabist Islamist missionaries from Saudi Arabia. Outside of America nations should be free to decide the limits of freedom of religion in their own lands and shouldn't be blamed for wanting to preserve the cultures, traditions and yes the traditional religion/s of their nation. That is the meat and potatoes of my argument.
CLD| 3.4.13 @ 2:04AM
The faithful in Russia did not endure decades of of official materialism for any reason other than the lack of a general political will to overthrow it. Similarly, one does not get cancer for any reason other than his immune system's inability to stop the cancer from developing.
That religious groups in Russian endured the communist oppression gets them nothing over and against other religious groups.
"Outside of America nations should be free to decide the limits of freedom of religion in their own lands and shouldn't be blamed for wanting to preserve the cultures"
I don't fault people for wanting to preserve their cultures per se. It's really a matter of just what one wants to preserve, and more importantly, how. In any event, no one can ever be forced into preserving a culture.
As for nations, they certainly can -- as a simple matter of fact -- determine for themselves what the limits of any legal right or obligation are. (As for a nation determing by itself what its obligations are under the UN's Declaration of Human Rights -- that's another matter, of course.)
But you miss the actual point of my posts just as you have failed to answer any of my substantive questions.
CLD| 3.4.13 @ 2:05AM
But I'm not concerned with the 'rights' of nations, any more than I am in the 'rights' of cultures. I believe I've made that perfectly clear throughout my comments. I'm concerned only with the rights of individuals -- as only individuals truly have rights in the first place.
Your cultural conservatism is of a piece the Saudi's oppression of all religions except their native Wahhaibism, and of the Ugandan government's efforts to oppress homosexuals under the notion that homosexuality is an un-African import from foreign lands.
It would also be in perfect agreement with the old legal code of the Republic of Ireland, which forbade even condoms for everyone, regardless of religious belief -- and with the old Chinese practice of binding women's feet.
Under all these regimes, it was 'protecting the culture' that mattered: individual people were only the means to that end. The "meat and potatoes" of your argument agrees with such attitudes perfectly, Dimitri. That is why it is evil.